Thursday, October 30, 2014

Speaking from a sociological
perspective, it is a good idea to have separation of church and State. The two
are totally different entities. This does not mean that a State cannot be based
on or supported by the doctrine of a religion/church or faith. However, it is
important that these two social institutions remain separate because they are
fundamentally different. The State is an entity called government, whether by
the people or not, reins in or controls society in order to benefit the common
good which in many societies observed throughout history this has been the
case; and quite often those in government positions have a family history of
being in government and or are members of the ruling elite. Given that, to
impose upon people what you think is good or right is to their (ruling elite)
benefit then and not the churches.Most
people reading this are passionate spirit believers and cannot accept that the
real strength in bringing people to Christ is to rest in Him and that is faith
which is about accepting God’s grace. Living under the law was removed at the
cross. All too often, Americans turn to
the law (listen to Dr. Erwin Lutzer’s program on Basis for Morality, What the Cross
can do and Politics Can’t - online radio program 'Running to Win') The fault of Americans is the idea that suffering is
bad and hence we turn more and more to the law to end suffering. We rally
together to stop suffering.That is why
we have lobbyists... groups lobbying for law to stop suffering that we feel we
are undergoing and if only given power in the State our suffering will end... Hebrews
thought and did just that in the past.

Our Founding Fathers experienced
opposing views on the role of the State and thankfully realized that as long as
the State does not take control or take sides and allows for all people in the State
to practice free market and what they believe, that life will be as fair as it possibly
can in this fallen world.That is why, any
State funded public facility or place cannot show favoritism toward any one
religion over another. They can all be represented equally or not represented
at all by the State.

Can people of the State go into
public facilities, ministering? Based on the above, the answer is no.Is this problematic for the Christian? Yes
and No. Yes, because he/she is required to minister the word of God. I would
argue that one can do that through behavior which sends a message that can be
as clear as a bell of any scripture; and therefore, it is not problematic for
the Christian. As I Stated above, rest in the Lord. I would add though and even stress that it is
problematic for the Christian who is a zealous in his thinking and even
repenting as this often leads them to think that by his/her own works and
pressing upon others his/her view of scripture is doing the will of the Creator.
Handing out shoe boxes, even to
children, is not the same as the ‘roadside Samaritan’ which shows us that
situations will come to us or be made available to us in which we should be
prepared for and thus will know it is the right situation to minister. Many ministries today seek to radically change
the individual’s situation.Is that
their job? Christ Jesus is the Savior.

Many will argue that this is what we
are called to do. I know from my own experience that radical approaches do not
work.Neither does the approach to go with
gifts. There is no benefit for the Christian or the non-Christian as such
offerings can lead to the receiver believingmore in the bearer of gifts than in the message intended which is to
tell everyone that they (by themselves) can reach out to the Lord.

As a child, I believed in Santa
Claus and did not want to accept that my parents were the ones giving the
gifts.One could argue that ‘Santa’ is
like Jesus and the missionary like the parents. I also know that as a child,
getting those presents from ‘Santa Claus’ was special. Did I truly believe he
was the provider? No, because I already had a Christian background. I was able
to appreciate that my parents were the ones behind the scenes as I knew that
they were spirit filled and chose to give gifts. Yes, this is the missionary’s
idea too. But, they forget that if the receive does not already have a Christian
background, the message can be received differently. However, children are
exceptional in that they can often see past the veil of deception and they see
the true spirit in people. That’s my opinion.What worries me is that such gift giving could turn parents and children
against each other as the parents could be insulted by the missionary who is
doing for his/her child.

Yes, we want suffering to stop. Feeding
the hungry, clothing the poor, including children, is a job to be done by all; but,
we as Christians have to be and should be most careful as to how we go about doing
it. Why?

Ask yourself, are you a Christian because a
missionary/pastor/neighbor gave you gifts every year at a certain time or are
you a Christian because you were introduced to the Creator of Heaven and Earth
simply through His word you gave to believe in the Lord God Jesus Christ,
without candy/gifts.Give a Bible and
tell those who can read to Read Acts 17:24 to all who cannot. People need to be
encouraged to reach out to the Lord and seek a relationship with Him. Like Mike Brown says “you
think about that.”

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

The Social Imagination is Fascinating

Get your facts right

By Ben HirschlerLONDON (Reuters) - Italians and Americans score worst when it comes to
correctly assessing basic facts of modern life, such as what proportion of the
population are immigrants or Muslims and what percentage of teenage girls get
pregnant.Swedes and Germans do best, although even they consistently get things
wrong, according to a survey of 14 industrialized countries released on
Wednesday.The analysis by market research organization Ipsos MORI shows how far
perceptions stray from reality across a range of issues as people struggle to
get a precise handle on aspects of society that are seen as risks or worries.Levels of immigration -- a hot-button topic in many developed countries --
are overestimated everywhere but the United States veers further from reality
than most, with an average guess that 32 percent of the population are
immigrants when the reality is 13 percent.Italy fares even worse, with an average guess of 30 percent against a real
figure of only seven percent.Italians are also spectacularly bad at estimating the number of old people
in the country, believing that 48 percent are over 65 years old. In reality,
the over-65s make up a fifth of the population -- a relatively high figure but
no higher than in Germany and considerably lower than in Japan.Teenage pregnancy is another issue where people everywhere get the sums
badly wrong, reflecting the difficulty of assessing occurrences that are
relatively rare.Americans think 24 percent of girls aged 15 to 19 give birth each year, when
the real figure is just 3 percent, and even the sensible Swedes are badly out,
believing the annual teenage pregnancy rate is 8 percent compared to the actual
0.7 percent."People are just not very good at math and they find it particularly
hard to make estimates about very large numbers or very small numbers,"
said Bobby Duffy, global director of the Ipsos Social Research Institute."It seems people remember vivid anecdotes about things, regardless of
whether they are describing something very rare."Health experts have bemoaned similar perception problems in the current
Ebola outbreak, where public alarm over a handful of cases in the United States
is at odds with the real risks. This topic was not covered in the survey, which
was conducted in August among more than 11,000 people across the 14 countries.RELIGIOUS DIVIDESEstimating religious groupings in society is another area where perception
is seriously out of kilter with reality. Like other controversial topics, it is
a subject where media coverage is likely to play a role in exaggerating
misconceptions.People hugely overestimate the proportion of Muslims living in their
country, with the French putting the figure at 31 percent, when the real figure
is 8 percent. The British guess at 21 percent (real figure 5 percent) and
Americans estimate 15 percent (real figure 1 percent).Even in countries such as Hungary, Poland, South Korea and Japan, where
fewer than one percent of the population is Muslim, people put the figure at
four to seven percent.By contrast, majority-Christian countries tend to underestimate how many
people count themselves as Christian.The ramifications of widespread ignorance about basic measures of what is
happening in society are unclear but they could potentially influence behavior
and undermine rational political debate.If, as the survey found, people routinely underestimate the proportion of
the population that votes in elections, there may be a persistent downward
drift in voter turnout. Similarly, if people are not accurately assessing the impact of policies in
areas such as immigration, then action by governments may not influence the
political debate as expected.Much of the disconnect may be down to "emotional innumeracy" when
answering, according to Duffy, who believes people may be sending a message
about what is worrying them as much as trying to reply to the questions
correctly."Cause and effect can run both ways, with our concern leading to our
misperceptions as much as our misperceptions creating our concern," he
said.(Editing by Gareth Jones)

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Before I give you to read two reviews about the book The Dark Side of Charles Darwin by Dr. Jerry Bergman, I would like to remind speaking as a sociologist, that science does not exist outside the social reality.
The Dark Side of Charles Darwin is a book written by Jerry Bergman. Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry,
anthropology, geology, and microbiology at the college level for over
30 years. He has 9 degrees, including 7 graduate degrees, and has
authored over 800 publications. He is not only the author of The Dark Side of
Charles Darwin but also the co-author of In Six Days and Persuaded by the
Evidence.
I provide two reviews. The first is by Fritz R. Ward - "There is actually some discrepancy between the title of this book and
the contents. Darwin's "dark" side is not, for the most part, something
deeply sinister as some might infer from the title. It is rather that
Darwin was subject to the same follies as most humans are. He was at
times pompous, disagreeable, and inclined to overestimate his own
abilities and competence. He was often unwilling to abandon his own
ideas, even when he knew they were wrong, and he was not above attacking
on a personal level those who found professional points of disagreement
with him. And he was above all, a man of his time, specifically
Victorian England. His "dark side" then is the Darwin that is not so
much sinister as he is human. Historians have written about these
issues for years, and the best of the their work is well summarized in
this new book by Jerry Bergman.

Darwin's life comes in for some
critical examination by Bergman. He reviews literature on Darwin's
health, his views on Christianity, his scholarship, and his views on
racism and sexism. Most of what appears in this book is widely known to
specialists, but it is rarely compiled in such a comprehensive fashion.
Yes, Darwin was explicitly trying to undermine Christianity. The myth
that he found evidence for evolution and then gradually moved towards
agnosticism, while promoted by Darwin himself, is largely untrue.
Darwin's work was an explicit attempt to resolve a problem, theodicy
(how to justify an all loving God in a world that includes sorrow and
death) that vexed Victorian theologians by simply removing God from
nature altogether. And while Darwin's influence on theology is still
widely felt, both by atheists and unorthodox theists, his actual
scientific work was often wanting. Darwin was not above plagiarism,
where it suited his purpose, nor was he above falsifying evidence when
it promoted his theories, most especially in his book "The Expression of
Emotions in Man and Animals." He also continued to support his
pangenesis ideas even after they were empirically falsified.

But
Darwin's failures in these areas are hardly unique. Confronted with
contrary evidence, few scientists are as responsible as the late Sir
Fred Hoyle in simply abandoning their theoretical models. Indeed, many
scientists today are not above covering up their reliance on others or
shoddy scholarship when it suits their purposes. But in some areas
Darwin's views went far beyond what was the norm for his own age and
profession. Bergman demonstrates that racism and sexism, widely
attributed to followers of Darwin misapplying his work, were concepts
actually found in Darwin's writing. Indeed, they were central to his
thesis. Yes, it is true that Darwin opposed slavery. But it is equally
true that his own writings were often more racist than was typical for
Victorians.

In the final analysis, none of this should matter to
the "science" of evolution. If Darwin was correct, and many people
still believe he is (though by all accounts, his theory of pangenesis
has been completely displaced by gene theory, and Darwin himself viewed
the latter as central to understanding evolution) then what difference
does it make if he had personal shortcomings? And the answer is, none
at all. But I suspect that this book will receive unfavorable reactions
from many who believe in evolution anyway, and this despite its careful
summation of critical historical scholarship that is well documented in
the endnotes to each chapter. The reason is that Darwinian thought is
at once more and less than what is commonly considered science proper.
For some writers like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, it is the basis
of a secular religion. Darwin is thus not simply a scientist who did
careful research on barnacles, collected species while on an expedition,
and occasionally wrote longer treatises which have been somewhat
discredited. He is the founder of a cult, and his status among the
followers of this cult is near sainthood. But as all good religious
scholars know, the criteria for sainthood must also include hearing from
the Devil's Advocate. Such a voice has been conspicuously absent from
the popular hoopla that surrounded the 150 year publication celebration
of 'The Origin of Species.' This new book by Jerry Bergman fills that
void nicely.
There is actually some discrepancy between the title of this book and
the contents. Darwin's "dark" side is not, for the most part, something
deeply sinister as some might infer from the title. It is rather that
Darwin was subject to the same follies as most humans are. He was at
times pompous, disagreeable, and inclined to overestimate his own
abilities and competence. He was often unwilling to abandon his own
ideas, even when he knew they were wrong, and he was not above attacking
on a personal level those who found professional points of disagreement
with him. And he was above all, a man of his time, specifically
Victorian England. His "dark side" then is the Darwin that is not so
much sinister as he is human. Historians have written about these
issues for years, and the best of the their work is well summarized in
this new book by Jerry Bergman.

Darwin's life comes in for some
critical examination by Bergman. He reviews literature on Darwin's
health, his views on Christianity, his scholarship, and his views on
racism and sexism. Most of what appears in this book is widely known to
specialists, but it is rarely compiled in such a comprehensive fashion.
Yes, Darwin was explicitly trying to undermine Christianity. The myth
that he found evidence for evolution and then gradually moved towards
agnosticism, while promoted by Darwin himself, is largely untrue.
Darwin's work was an explicit attempt to resolve a problem, theodicy
(how to justify an all loving God in a world that includes sorrow and
death) that vexed Victorian theologians by simply removing God from
nature altogether. And while Darwin's influence on theology is still
widely felt, both by atheists and unorthodox theists, his actual
scientific work was often wanting. Darwin was not above plagiarism,
where it suited his purpose, nor was he above falsifying evidence when
it promoted his theories, most especially in his book "The Expression of
Emotions in Man and Animals." He also continued to support his
pangenesis ideas even after they were empirically falsified.

But
Darwin's failures in these areas are hardly unique. Confronted with
contrary evidence, few scientists are as responsible as the late Sir
Fred Hoyle in simply abandoning their theoretical models. Indeed, many
scientists today are not above covering up their reliance on others or
shoddy scholarship when it suits their purposes. But in some areas
Darwin's views went far beyond what was the norm for his own age and
profession. Bergman demonstrates that racism and sexism, widely
attributed to followers of Darwin misapplying his work, were concepts
actually found in Darwin's writing. Indeed, they were central to his
thesis. Yes, it is true that Darwin opposed slavery. But it is equally
true that his own writings were often more racist than was typical for
Victorians.

In the final analysis, none of this should matter to
the "science" of evolution. If Darwin was correct, and many people
still believe he is (though by all accounts, his theory of pangenesis
has been completely displaced by gene theory, and Darwin himself viewed
the latter as central to understanding evolution) then what difference
does it make if he had personal shortcomings? And the answer is, none
at all. But I suspect that this book will receive unfavorable reactions
from many who believe in evolution anyway, and this despite its careful
summation of critical historical scholarship that is well documented in
the endnotes to each chapter. The reason is that Darwinian thought is
at once more and less than what is commonly considered science proper.
For some writers like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, it is the basis
of a secular religion. Darwin is thus not simply a scientist who did
careful research on barnacles, collected species while on an expedition,
and occasionally wrote longer treatises which have been somewhat
discredited. He is the founder of a cult, and his status among the
followers of this cult is near sainthood. But as all good religious
scholars know, the criteria for sainthood must also include hearing from
the Devil's Advocate. Such a voice has been conspicuously absent from
the popular hoopla that surrounded the 150 year publication celebration
of 'The Origin of Species.' This new book by Jerry Bergman fills that
void nicely."

The second review is by Jan Peczkis - "This iconoclastic work is based on in-depth scholarship. It is
undoubtedly a major contribution to the history of science. Whether you
idolize Darwin or scorn him, you will learn something new. Rather than
repeating other reviewers, I focus mostly on specific issues.

In
2005, Judge Jones (as many other judges before him) insisted that there
is no conflict between evolution and theism. (p. 45). Bergman begs to
differ. He cites William Provine, who contends that such a position is
based on ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, or wishful thinking. (p.
57). Many other cited leading scientists, such as Jerry Coyne, late
Stephen Jay Gould, Scott Todd, and others, affirm this incompatibility.

Nor
are these selected personages. A survey shows that 98.7% of leading
scientists reject a theistic worldview, and 84% rejected all theistic
religions. (p. 52). Another survey, of 149 leading biologists, found
that only 6% of them believe that evolution has any purpose beyond the
survival of the organism. (p. 80). [Some might argue that even the term
"purpose of survival" is misleading, as it would imply that evolution is
teleological in a sense. Survivorship of organisms is an outcome, not a
goal or purpose. Evolution just happens: It has no goals or purposes.]

Atheism
ran in Darwin's family. His father and grandfather had been atheists.
Darwin argued that religion could best be undermined by gradual
promotion of naturalism, and not by open attacks on religion. His "soft"
atheism was motivated by public-relations considerations (p. 114), and
probably also was motivated by his desire not to antagonize his devout
wife and his Christian colleagues. (e.g., p. 68). Bergman suggests that
part of Darwin's psychological problems revolved around his rejection of
God, and other implications of his theory. (p. 108, 111, 117).
Interestingly, Darwin may have suffered from Asperger's Syndrome. (pp.
95-96).
This work is filled with interesting information. For
instance, did you know that children tend to be resistant to evolution
because they see the world as filled with design and purpose? (p. 76).
To be successful, evolution education must indoctrinate them to see
things in a different way.

Just how original were Darwin's ideas?
Bergman presents impressive evidence to show that Darwin copied, even
plagiarized, others' ideas. For instance, English naturalist Edward
Blythe (1810-1873) came up with the ideas of natural and sexual
selection, the importance of variation in selection, and the struggle
for existence, before Darwin did. However, Blythe had done it in a
creationist context. (pp. 147-148). Otherwise, Darwin believed in
pangenesis (p. 189), and held essentially Lamarckian ideas about the
transmission of genetic information to successive generations. (pp.
194-196).

Racism and sexism were common in Victorian society, and
it has been argued that Darwin's adherence to such views was merely
because of his being part of a society that esteemed such views.
Bergman, on the other hand, shows how Darwin went far beyond the
prevailing views of his time. Darwin actively developed, extended, and
promoted racism and sexism in terms of his theory. For instance,
Darwin's firsthand experience with South American natives, along with
his theory, led him to promulgate the notion that these peoples are less
evolved than white Europeans. (p. 219). Darwin also promoted eugenics.
Applying his theory to male-female differences, Darwin saw men as
subject to "the survival of the fittest", while women were not. For this
reason, men were self-evidently more evolved than women. (pp. 246-247)."

Furthermore, I stress Christianity as the catalyst for the 'modern' world. Many intellectuals want to
embrace the idea that man is his own beginning and end; "that every
human action is actually the effect of a network of material practices."
Which, as a sociologist, I cannot disagree with. All of social reality,
which science is not separate from, is 'real' as it is experienced
through social interaction which I can observe as a network of material
practices that have meaning but only for those who practice
them in a place as human action/interaction is in relation to place.
With that in mind, regarding how the modern world came about, that is
obvious. The modern world came about through Christianity based on the
same social principle except that a new network arose- a new level of
cognitive social imagination; not 'action' based, but 'thought' based.
Pagans, all those who worship/worshiped many gods/nature' were caught up
in the flesh 'ritualized physical acts in a physical world' . Even
native American Indians, though thought of as spiritual people, were and
are spiritual animists... those who seek spiritual revelation in the
flesh of objects/animals or the sun/moon- things which can be seen.
Christians are different from pagans. Christianity gave way to great
discoveries because it stated that things which are seen come from that
which are unseen. Christianity allowed for the atom to be observed and
recognition of quantum physics. It asks that the spirit already in us
(not out there in an object/animal) overcomes the flesh as that is not
where true reality exists. Dr. E.F. Gallion

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

I learned about an interesting experiment called "Action Observation
Circuits in the Macaque Monkey Cortex." I provide here the. Abstract: In both monkeys and
humans, the observation of actions performed by others activates
cortical motor areas. An unresolved question concerns the pathways
through which motor areas receive visual information describing motor
acts. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we mapped the
macaque brain regions activated during the observation of grasping
actions, focusing on the superior temporal sulcus region (STS) and the
posterior parietal lobe. Monkeys viewed either videos with only the
grasping hand visible or videos with the whole actor visible.
Observation of both types of grasping videos activated elongated regions
in the depths of both lower and upper banks of STS, as well as parietal
areas PFG and anterior intraparietal (AIP). The correlation of fMRI
data with connectional data showed that visual action information,
encoded in the STS, is forwarded to ventral premotor cortex (F5) along
two distinct functional routes. One route connects the upper bank of the
STS with area PFG, which projects, in turn, to the premotor area F5c.
The other connects the anterior part of the lower bank of the STS with
premotor areas F5a/p via AIP. Whereas the first functional route
emphasizes the agent and may relay visual information to the
parieto-frontal mirror circuit involved in understanding the agent's
intentions, the second route emphasizes the object of the action and may
aid in understanding motor acts with respect to their immediate goal.
What does this mean? Well... it means that the topic of action
observation/recognition received increased attention after the discovery
of mirror neurons in ventral premotor cortex of the monkey (area F5), a
class of neurons discharging both when a monkey performs a
goal-directed motor act and when it observes another individual
performing the same or a similar motor act. *See - http://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/10/3743.fullAs a sociologist, it means, if I can put it into lay terms, that even as we watch a performance, (or action/activity) even before doing it ourselves, our brain recognizes this and records that information. Simply, in the part of our brain that would be responsible for that
act/performance, when that action is viewed, our brain is stimulated as if actually doing the 'act'. This is
how we are embedded from infancy with information in that babies respond
to parents (mother) in all she does and what she does and how she
reacts gets hard coded; so that when it comes time for baby to do it,
he/she will do it automatically or without hesitation. This hard coding
is a safety mechanism (for survival) inasmuch a social tool to be used
for future. interaction. Which means that we better think about what we
do in front of our children and what we as parents say is ok behavior. We can also consider the effects of social media (television) as producing negative results in society. A healthy society should monitor the violence and sex on television as well as what we sell each other in adds. What do we see out there today in terms of advertisement - Sex and Drugs and the law as a means to make money. As I reflect on this study I am horrified. As I see through the prism of my education that society is moving in a dangerous direction. It is being programmed to do damage rather than to do good. There is a tool used called the Sabido Methodology which I know I have written on before. It is a tool of social engineering developed by Miguel Sabido. The Sabido Method is based on character
development and plot lines that provide the audience with a range of
characters that they can engage with — some good, some not so good — and
follow as they evolve and change. And it is change that is the key to the Sabido methodology. Characters may begin the
series exhibiting the antithesis of the values being taught, but through
interaction with other characters, twists and turns in the plot, and
sometimes even outside intervention, come to see the value of the
program’s underlying message. Yes, of course, it is and or was designed to benefit society. Which level of society? and what change does that level want for all others??? As Steve Brown says, "You think about that".

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Prof. Brad Wilcox is Director of the National Marriage Project and Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, and a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University.He
earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Virginia and his
Ph.D. at Princeton University. Prior to coming to the University of
Virginia, he held research fellowships at Princeton University, Yale
University and the Brookings Institution.In his book, "Gender and Parenthood: Biological and Social Scientific Perspectives, we can readessays on biological and social scientific perspectives that seek to evaluate the
transformative experience of parenthood for today's women and men. They
map the similar and distinct roles mothers and fathers play in their
children's lives and measure the effect of gendered parenting on child
well-being, work and family arrangements, and the quality of couples'
relationships. Contributors describe what happens to brains and
bodies when women become mothers and men become fathers; whether the
stakes are the same or different for each sex; why, across history and
cultures, women are typically more involved in childcare than men; why
some fathers are strongly present in their children's lives while others
are not; and how the various commitments men and women make to
parenting shape their approaches to paid work and romantic
relationships. Considering recent changes in men's and women's familial
duties, the growing number of single-parent families, and the
impassioned tenor of same-sex marriage debates, this book adds sound
scientific and theoretical insight to these issues, constituting a
standout resource for those interested in the causes and consequences of
contemporary gendered parenthood. Wilcox in an interview with Denis Rainy on family life, clearly stated that gendered parents as in best practices even in our modern society for raising children are male/female gendered households. There are changes in our modern society regarding women's roles and Wilcox recognizes that a lot of women today work outside the home and thus feel on equal footing in respect of financial provision and this is 'equal footing' is expected in the household concerning daily routine/tasks; I work, you work and we both work at home is basically the gist of his research outcomes. However, those maybe the expectations, marital quality is not improved by those expectations/practices. The
companionate theory of marriage suggests that egalitarianism in
practice and belief leads to higher marital quality for wives and higher
levels of positive emotion work on the part of husbands. Our analysis
of women's marital quality and men's marital emotion work provides
little evidence in support of this theory. Rather, in examining women's
marital quality and men's emotional investments in marriage, we find
that dyadic commitment to institutional ideals about marriage and
women's contentment with the division of household tasks are more
critical. We also show that men's marital emotion work is a very
important determinant of women's marital quality. We conclude by noting
that her marriage is happiest when it combines elements of the new and
old: that is, gender equity and normative commitment to the institution
of marriage.The new we know - I can be whatever I want to be and be a mother/wife. The old - I want to feel protected, secure, adored, raised up as the 'biblical' queen in your life... the old ideal is still vivid. As we can read in Ephesians 5. Such a conclusion is due to our socio-christian heritage, whether modern women believe or not, this heritage has been embedded information given and passed on and continues to be passed on as what is to be expected and striven for. The social imagination of family life is based on role relationships, males and females have distinct features both physical and emotional. Because of that, there are then expectations as to roles- who is best suited for what and why. Since, women are biologically designed/prepared for motherhood, it makes sense that they have babies and nurture them and that father too is involved but that his role is different and cannot be exactly the same. He is expected to lead, to protect and to be the head of the family. Of course, we can argue that the female can be both mother and father. She can bear children, raise them and protect them. But the question then is who protects her? Why would a man be expected or asked to protect her if she can do it all herself. We can argue that he would do it. However, to protect a strong woman would require a strong man, stronger than her in order that he can do the job. Otherwise, she might as well protect herself and him. Some say that is ok ... but what then is the man's role? He can't be the mother as he cannot bear children. Point being, men need a distinct role. They cannot be confronted with a partner that can do both roles, do his role and do it better. What is his role in the family? To be lost in the background, to be the 'same' sex / gender, to pretend to be a woman or be both? As a Christian, and a sociologist, I agree with Prof. Wilcox, marriage needs to be gendered and that has to be clear. It means that one person is designated to be one gender and the other person the opposite; which means that they have different roles and those roles are respected and applied in the household with continuity so that family stability ensues. As far as I can tell, we already have designated genders. So, why are we trying to re-create what already has been created as a best practice?

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Tim Muehlhoff is a
professor of communication at Biola University in La Mirada, California
where he teaches classes in family communication, interpersonal
communication and gender. Tim is the coauthor of The God Conversation: Using Stories and Illustrations to Explain Your Faith and Authentic Communication: Christian Speech Engaging Culture. I really liked his approach to understanding diversity and differences in social 'imagination' reality. Why? Because, it follows my previous post on agreement reality dictates. If you recall, I stated that in order for social reality to exist whatsoever, agreement between people's observations in terms of meaning need to be the same or similar in order for any individual and or group to be cohesive, sustainable and stable. This agreement usually occurs through experience of social interaction in a place. Since places differ across the country and globe, people have different social interaction in them and what it means to them in that place regarding survival especially. Though Prof. Muehlhoff did not talk about agreement reality, he did indirectly. His view on Christian communication is exactly based on the 'art' of finding neutral ground for what could be common among us regarding empathetic social interaction in order to achieve agreement when it comes to encountering differing aspects of different social realities.Basically, it requires as Charles H. Cooley called the Looking Glass Self experience which was very similar to George H. Mead's Standing in Someone Else's Shoes experience. We are assured that we don't have to be sympathetic but empathetic which means to understand that differences exist as this is what makes cultures diverse. We can also embrace this 'understanding' as what is common among us... even if and when we don't agree.

About Me

A Godly Woman

Reveling in the Word

As a Christian Sociologist, a defender of the faith I am but no contender of it as in fighting over it nor fighting people for it. There is no reason to fight over or about anything... only to love. This is realized when one embraces the knowledge that Jesus Christ came to die for our sins and give us life eternal. Yes, there is a fight and it is ours. When called, to be chosen and to be and remain faithful.

Reveling in the Word of God brings me joy, peace and rest. It is not to woo anyone with my knowledge or great argument for faith in a creator and salvation. For all who are called and chosen will hear the Word of God for themselves and be wooed by it! And, be faithful to it.